Microsoft will add Linux virtual machines to Windows Azure

Microsoft is preparing an expansion of the Windows Azure virtual machine hosting technology that will let customers run either Windows or Linux virtual machines, as well as applications like SQL Server and SharePoint, according to Mary-Jo Foley at ZDNet.

Azure already has a "VM role" service in beta, letting customers deploy a Windows Server 2008 R2 image. This is similar to the type of VM hosting offered by Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud, but much more limited—Azure hides much of the complexity of the operating system layer so developers can just focus on building applications.

Foley and her sources say Azure's current VM role is not persistent, meaning data is frequently lost. But a Community Technology Preview set to launch in spring of 2012 will fix this problem and add several other capabilities, including Linux hosting, according to Microsoft partners who spoke with Foley.

"What does this mean? Customers who want to run Windows or Linux 'durably' (i.e., without losing state) in VMs on Microsoft’s Azure platform-as-a-service platform will be able to do so," Foley wrote yesterday. "The new persistent VM support also will allow customers to run SQL Server or SharePoint Server in VMs, as well. And it will enable customers to more easily move existing apps to the Azure platform."

The Register noted last June that Microsoft was already testing Linux on Azure in its internal labs. Although Microsoft has often been at odds with the Linux community, it's a logical next step for the company, given that it has already worked on supporting Linux distributions on its Hyper-V virtualization software.

They are allowing a hypervisor to run what would normally sit -- on a hypervisor. Wow, what a stretch.

That said, it makes people who want a more broad environment to be able to enjoy Azure more than its competition, so I guess that's a good thing.

Well it's not just allowing...they officially support it, which involves making sure it doesn't affect the fabric, performance, they can provide the SLAs they offer, the whole 9 yards. It was inevitable though, and good for cloud users in general.

Maybe Red Hat should start approaching Azure customers now and ask them for license fees. That would be pretty funny.

And what standing would they have for doing that? If you are running a Red Hat VM in Azure you are already going to be paying RH licence, if you are running a Debian Server VM in Azure why would RH have anything to say? Do they have patents on VM technology? Do they have patents on Linux that aren't free?

Maybe Red Hat should start approaching Azure customers now and ask them for license fees. That would be pretty funny.

And what standing would they have for doing that? If you are running a Red Hat VM in Azure you are already going to be paying RH licence, if you are running a Debian Server VM in Azure why would RH have anything to say? Do they have patents on VM technology? Do they have patents on Linux that aren't free?

It's a joke about the fact that MS trolls other Linux users for patent licenses.

Just out of curiosity. How does Apple's server software compares to M$' and Linux's?

It doesn't much. Apple did a good job with the Mac OS X Server product through Snow Leopard, but they seem to have essentially gotten out of the business. They killed off their XRAID rack-mount hardware, and they no longer sell Mac OS X Server as a standalone product.

Which is a pity. Their server software was mostly based on Open Source tools like LDAP, Kerberos, and Python, but with some genuinely nice integration work and user interface design. It wasn't all that overwhelming in terms of the supported features (especially with their Calendar services), but they were at least trying to make a product out of common services the way Microsoft has with Active Directory and Exchange.

Just out of curiosity. How does Apple's server software compares to M$' and Linux's?

It doesn't much. Apple did a good job with the Mac OS X Server product through Snow Leopard, but they seem to have essentially gotten out of the business. They killed off their XRAID rack-mount hardware, and they no longer sell Mac OS X Server as a standalone product.

Which is a pity. Their server software was mostly based on Open Source tools like LDAP, Kerberos, and Python, but with some genuinely nice integration work and user interface design. It wasn't all that overwhelming in terms of the supported features (especially with their Calendar services), but they were at least trying to make a product out of common services the way Microsoft has with Active Directory and Exchange.

You never hear about any big businesses running Mac OS X Server for anything important. The latest server product is a $50 add-on to the desktop edition and seems targeted at homes with multiple Apple devices and some types of small businesses that may lack server expertise. It is kind of intriguing that you can turn a Mac desktop into a server with just a quick download, and that you still keep all the capabilities of the desktop, but I haven't found any reason to do it myself yet.

That's not even a logical scenario now. With the advent of Cloud Computing, and the introduction of devices that run different operating systems there is no way that Microsoft could extinguish and still be profitable. I've used Linux, BSD, and MS operating systems for many a year and I use to think along the same lines but now with the technology we have that would be a foolish business move for anybody. A lot has changed in the last 5 years alone.

Just out of curiosity. How does Apple's server software compares to M$' and Linux's?

It doesn't much. Apple did a good job with the Mac OS X Server product through Snow Leopard, but they seem to have essentially gotten out of the business. They killed off their XRAID rack-mount hardware, and they no longer sell Mac OS X Server as a standalone product.

Which is a pity. Their server software was mostly based on Open Source tools like LDAP, Kerberos, and Python, but with some genuinely nice integration work and user interface design. It wasn't all that overwhelming in terms of the supported features (especially with their Calendar services), but they were at least trying to make a product out of common services the way Microsoft has with Active Directory and Exchange.

You never hear about any big businesses running Mac OS X Server for anything important. The latest server product is a $50 add-on to the desktop edition and seems targeted at homes with multiple Apple devices and some types of small businesses that may lack server expertise. It is kind of intriguing that you can turn a Mac desktop into a server with just a quick download, and that you still keep all the capabilities of the desktop, but I haven't found any reason to do it myself yet.

No, but they were deeply entrenched in a few niche markets, like media production. A lot of studios and special effect production houses were heavy on Macs. Also a lot of academic units. My university built a state of the art video studio a few years back that was all Apple hardware, including a pretty sizable X-raid SAN. Now its more or less junk. If Apple stops selling the Mac Pro, like is rumored, you won't be able to get Apple hardware that has fiber channel.

It's a joke about the fact that MS trolls other Linux users for patent licenses.

Well if MS is infringing on any of RedHat's patents they should have to pay licensing fees. Just like companies who use MS' IP should have to pay them. I don't see an issue with that.

It's software patents. RedHat uses them defensively, not to be a tough ass on MS customers to coerce them into migrating to Linux or to spread FUD about Microsoft Server either.

Its not so much the patents I have a problem with. Its the fact that Microsoft shakes down Linux customers but refuses to tell the community which patents it believes actually infringe. That should be considered fraud in my opinion, or blackmail. Most FOSS advocates don't want to be infringing on Microsoft patents. But what choice is there when they are kept secret.